Does the New Testament Anywhere Clearly Talk About Homosexuals?

[Ingledsva]

Jesus Christ spoke of three classes of eunuchs at Matthew 19:12, saying: “For there are eunuchs that were born such from their mother’s womb, and there are eunuchs that were made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs that have made themselves eunuchs on account of the kingdom of the heavens. Let him that can make room for it make room for it.” Those who are said to have “made themselves eunuchs” because of the kingdom are those who exercise self-control so as to apply themselves to the service of God. The apostle Paul recommends this as the “better” course for Christians who do not become “inflamed with passion.” These, he said, could serve the Lord more constantly “without distraction.” (1Co 7:9, 29-38) Such “eunuchs” are not persons who have physically castrated themselves or have been emasculated; instead, these persons voluntarily remain in a state of singleness. No vow of celibacy is recommended by the Bible, and “forbidding to marry” is condemned as one of the marks of the apostasy. In fact, some of the apostles were married men.—1Ti 4:1-3; 1Co 9:5; Mt 8:14; Mr 1:30; Lu 4:38;


WOL

I take a different reading from some of this also.


Mat 19:11 "BUT" this information of mine is not for everyone to entertain/incorporate/use; this topic, contrariwise, is for the others given.


Mat 19:12 For there exist "EUNOUCHOS" which are from the Matrix/womb of their mothers gennao (born/made/GENDERED) (means gender biased distinction, orientation) in this way, and that exist as eunouchos; (and) some are castrated by men and exist as eunouchos; (and) some castrate themselves for the Kingdom of Heaven that it be possible to enter into it.

A state BEFORE BIRTH making them EUNUCHS - concerning marriage to women, and therefore ACCORDING TO JESUS - the law does not apply! - or those choosing celibacy – BUT - he mentions them separately.

Men with penis injuries, were not allowed to marry - so -


The only people whom are "EUNOUCHOS" before birth - and who would have been set up with a female before puberty per the culture - and not be interested="EUNOUCHOS" concerning their marriage - and thus being one that it DOES NOT APPLY TO - would be homosexuals.



*

 

[Emily Lewis]

Part of this goes back to the garden of Eden. Bible says in Genesis 2, “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him” (v. 18). Helper can be taken as a help-mate meaning Spouse. God then creates Eve as a woman, in order to be his help mate. This is taken as that man and women are meant to be the perfect help-mates to each other.

 

[psychoslice]

Lets face it, the new or old testament was written long ago in the ignorant past, how could anyone today take that so seriously ??.

 

[Jeremy Taylor]

homosexual desire isn't unnatural, though.

This depends on how one uses the term natural. Almost anyone who claims something is wrong because it is unnatural does not mean simply that it exists in nature. In classical natural law, for example, something is unnatural because it goes against the nature or essence of a thing and its ends.

A predilection to alcoholism is natural in the sense you are using the term natural, as is bestiality.

 

[Sunstone]

In classical natural law, for example, something is unnatural because it goes against the nature or essence of a thing and its ends.

Essentialism is an ancient concept unsupported by modern science -- especially the biological sciences. One might as well be mumbling stuff about the philosopher's stone and squaring the circle.

 

[starlite]

Lets face it, the new or old testament was written long ago in the ignorant past, how could anyone today take that so seriously ??.

Then how are many of the things written in it accurately taking place today? For example:

(2 Timothy 3:1-5) But know this, that in the last days critical times hard to deal with will be here. 2 For men will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, self-assuming, haughty, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, disloyal, 3 having no natural affection, not open to any agreement, slanderers, without self-control, fierce, without love of goodness, 4 betrayers, headstrong, puffed up [with pride], lovers of pleasures rather than lovers of God, 5 having a form of godly devotion but proving false to its power; and from these turn away.

Also Matthew 24:3-14 describes current events...

3 While he was sitting upon the Mount of Olives, the disciples approached him privately, saying: “Tell us, When will these things be, and what will be the sign of your presence and of the conclusion of the system of things?” 4 And in answer Jesus said to them: “Look out that nobody misleads YOU; 5 for many will come on the basis of my name, saying, ‘I am the Christ,’ and will mislead many. 6 YOU are going to hear of wars and reports of wars; see that YOU are not terrified. For these things must take place, but the end is not yet. 7 “For nation will rise against nation and kingdom against kingdom, and there will be food shortages and earthquakes in one place after another. 8 All these things are a beginning of pangs of distress. 9 “Then people will deliver YOU up to tribulation and will kill YOU, and YOU will be objects of hatred by all the nations on account of my name. 10 Then, also, many will be stumbled and will betray one another and will hate one another. 11 And many false prophets will arise and mislead many; 12 and because of the increasing of lawlessness the love of the greater number will cool off. 13 But he that has endured to the end is the one that will be saved. 14 And this good news of the kingdom will be preached in all the inhabited earth for a witness to all the nations; and then the end will come.

Have you seen such things occurring? Philosopher Bertrand Russell wrote: “Ever since 1914, everybody conscious of trends in the world has been deeply troubled by what has seemed like a fated and predetermined march toward ever greater disaster.” Danish historian Peter Munch is reported as writing: “The outbreak of the war in 1914 is the great turning point of the history of humanity. . . . We entered an age of disaster, horror, and hatred, with insecurity everywhere.”

Besides wars, from 1914 onward, famine, pestilence, earthquakes, and violence have escalated to an unprecedented degree worldwide. Sadly, in spite of advanced science and technology, mankind is totally helpless when it comes to solving these difficult problems. I feel that the sign Jesus gave regarding the time of the end is right before our eyes.

 

[Estro Felino]

Here is an example of this.These women of God instead of correcting Apollos in the synagogue,they invited him to their home and instructed him there about Gods word.Notice it says he was a learned man.He knew some truth but it was these two women who corrected him more adequately.So women do play a vital role in Gods work.They are just not permitted to teach to men within the congregation.Thats all.

That's all?? Come on...do you really think it is a divinely inspired concept?
That women cannot teach to men?

I remind you that Mary was the one who raised and educated Jesus

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Essentialism is an ancient concept unsupported by modern science -- especially the biological sciences. One might as well be mumbling stuff about the philosopher's stone and squaring the circle.

That's true. This discussion was occurring the first century, and in first century philosophical / cosmological constructs. Obviously today the landscape is much different -- so much so that the vocabulary used within this discussion [like the words Paul uses to describe 'homosexual' behavior in Romans 1] cannot be used in modern discussions because the "English" words used to translate the "Greek" original exist in completely foreign contexts. In other words, while there are problems in translation, there are even more problems in interpretation.

Anyway, the argument that Paul is talking about homosexual behavior in Romans 1 is convincing because Paul is consciously choosing one cosmology over others. He could have chosen a cosmology that allowed for all kinds of unity between humans -- male homosexuality, female homosexuality, group marriage, non-marriage, incest, whatever. He chose male/female and projected that onto Christ's (male) relationship with the church (female). That 'natural' unity between male and female is the pattern that holds the entire cosmos together -- when males unite or females unite, it is an interruption of the divine order.

 

[Nada]

That's all?? Come on...do you really think it is a divinely inspired concept?
That women cannot teach to men?

I remind you that Mary was the one who raised and educated Jesus

What do you mean thats all? Thats a good example of how women are important and can teach.Its in the holy scriptures.The holy scriptures is Gods Word.If you believe in the holy scriptures and that it is Gods Word then you should adhere to all that is said.

1 Corinthians 11:3 But I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.


It was not just Mary who taught Jesus about God but Joseph as well.Jesus was also naturally attracted to the Word of God and was very bright.
Luke 2:47 But all those listening to him were in constant amazement at his understanding and his answers.

This 12-year-old boy Jesus displayed brilliant learning for his age. “All those listening to him were in constant amazement at his understanding and his answers.” (Lu 2:47) Jesus’ knowledge and understanding of the Scriptures reflected fine parental training. Mary as well as Joseph must have been very diligent in teaching and training the child, bringing him up in “the discipline and mental-regulating of Jehovah” and cultivating in him appreciation of the custom of attending the synagogue every Sabbath.—Lu 4:16; Eph 6:4.

Mary — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY

Jesus was also taken to the Synagogue to listen about the Word of God by his parents.
Luke 4:16 He then went to Naz′a·reth, where he had been brought up, and according to his custom on the Sabbath day, he entered the synagogue and stood up to read.

 

[Estro Felino]

What do you mean thats all? Thats a good example of how women are important and can teach.Its in the holy scriptures.The holy scriptures is Gods Word.If you believe in the holy scriptures and that it is Gods Word then you should adhere to all that is said.

all right, Forgive my intemperance. You are right. I deeply respect your beliefs; if you believe that all that came out of Paul's mouth is God's word, I respect it.

as for my vision...well...it is very difficult to accept Paul's teachings. I think that most things Paul says are certainly divinely inspired.
But as a Pelagian, I reject the theological assumptions made by Paul in Romans 1.

 

[sojourner]

That's true. This discussion was occurring the first century, and in first century philosophical / cosmological constructs. Obviously today the landscape is much different -- so much so that the vocabulary used within this discussion [like the words Paul uses to describe 'homosexual' behavior in Romans 1] cannot be used in modern discussions because the "English" words used to translate the "Greek" original exist in completely foreign contexts. In other words, while there are problems in translation, there are even more problems in interpretation.

Anyway, the argument that Paul is talking about homosexual behavior in Romans 1 is convincing because Paul is consciously choosing one cosmology over others. He could have chosen a cosmology that allowed for all kinds of unity between humans -- male homosexuality, female homosexuality, group marriage, non-marriage, incest, whatever. He chose male/female and projected that onto Christ's (male) relationship with the church (female). That 'natural' unity between male and female is the pattern that holds the entire cosmos together -- when males unite or females unite, it is an interruption of the divine order.

And it follows that the cosmological picture Paul has chosen is neither "universal," nor "absolute truth." It's one choice of many choices -- which is all a theological construct really is: one piece of a quilt that requires all the other pieces to be in conversation. I still maintain that it was Paul's ignorance of homosexuality as an orientation that informed his choice -- at least in part, if not in whole. Therefore, what Paul says doesn't concern homosexuality -- it only concerns sexual behaviors which, within the confines of his chosen cosmology, can only be "unnatural," since, within the confines of the particular cosmology, homosexuality does not exist.

Just because Paul says it, IOW, doesn't mean it's absolutely or universally true. He's engaging one particular construct of many -- not the ONLY construct.

 

[Nada]

all right, Forgive my intemperance. You are right. I deeply respect your beliefs; if you believe that all that came out of Paul's mouth is God's word, I respect it.

as for my vision...well...it is very difficult to accept Paul's teachings. I think that most things Paul says are certainly divinely inspired.
But as a Pelagian, I reject the theological assumptions made by Paul in Romans 1.

I appreciate that.Thank you. I want to point something out to you though.If you accept somethings from Paul to be divinely inspired than all that he says should be accepted.If Paul truly speaks for God and was personally chosen for this purpose than all he says should be considered true.Jesus appeared to him on the side of the road on his way to Damascus to persecute Christians and was changed forever.From that point on Paul preached the true Word of God to everyone.He only preaches what the holy spirit teaches him.If he is truly guided by Gods holy spirit and was anointed to do so than all he says is correct.He represents God.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

And it follows that the cosmological picture Paul has chosen is neither "universal," nor "absolute truth." It's one choice of many choices -- which is all a theological construct really is: one piece of a quilt that requires all the other pieces to be in conversation. I still maintain that it was Paul's ignorance of homosexuality as an orientation that informed his choice -- at least in part, if not in whole. Therefore, what Paul says doesn't concern homosexuality -- it only concerns sexual behaviors which, within the confines of his chosen cosmology, can only be "unnatural," since, within the confines of the particular cosmology, homosexuality does not exist.

Just because Paul says it, IOW, doesn't mean it's absolutely or universally true. He's engaging one particular construct of many -- not the ONLY construct.

Yes, I'm thinking that if we refuse to adopt Paul's cosmology, it doesn't make sense to try and keep the symbols of it alive. We can't keep his teachings "against homosexuality" without keeping the cosmology that he constructs with it. And if we adopt his cosmology, we reject modern philosophy and science.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I still maintain that it was Paul's ignorance of homosexuality as an orientation that informed his choice

I disagree a little. Paul did understand - I think - that some men wanted sexual relationships with men only and some women wanted sexual relationships with women only. That's as close to a cultural equivalent as we can get, aside from him writing a treatise on the nature of sexual orientation in English citing modern studies on human sexuality.

The context of Paul's use of sexual terms in Romans 1 (and elsewhere) is within the framework of an ongoing discussion about preference. The ancients knew - and wrote about - people who were exclusively attracted to same-sex partners. We can call that 'homosexuality' with the understanding that modern explorations of sexuality did not exist.

 

[Ingledsva]

Here is an example of this.These women of God instead of correcting Apollos in the synagogue,they invited him to their home and instructed him there about Gods word.Notice it says he was a learned man.He knew some truth but it was these two women who corrected him more adequately.So women do play a vital role in Gods work.They are just not permitted to teach to men within the congregation.Thats all.

So then, what about Anna that lived at the Temple and preached about Jesus to everyone that came there?


Luk 2:37 And she was a widow of about fourscore and four years, which departed not from the temple, but served God with fastings and prayers night and day.

Luk 2:38 And she coming in that instant gave thanks likewise unto the Lord, and preached of him to all them that looked for redemption in Jerusalem.


HUMMMmmm! She "departed NOT from the Jerusalem TEMPLE" AND "SHE PREACHED about Jesus to ALL whom looked for redemption in Jerusalem!

GEE WIZ Boys and Girls! Sounds like a FEMALE PREACHER and PROPHETESS preaching from "THE" TEMPLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!


*

Do you really think all the female prophets didn't preach like male prophets?

*

The Deacon in Rom 16:1 obviously preached.


Rom 16:1 I commend unto you Phebe our sister, which is Diakonos (Pastor) of the church which is at Cenchrea:


*


The Apostle obviously preached, - that is their job.


Rom 16:7 Salute Andronicus and Junia, my kinsmen, and my fellow prisoners, who are of note among the apostles, who also were in Christ before me.



*

 

[starlite]

I still maintain that it was Paul's ignorance of homosexuality as an orientation that informed his choice -- at least in part, if not in whole. Just because Paul says it, IOW, doesn't mean it's absolutely or universally true. He's engaging one particular construct of many -- not the ONLY construct.

INSPIRATION:The quality or state of being moved by or produced under the direction of a spirit from a superhuman source. When that source is Jehovah, the result is a pronouncement or writings that are truly the word of God. The apostle Paul stated at 2 Timothy 3:16: “All Scripture is inspired of God.” Therefore, what Paul spoke and wrote was not his opinion but the point of view of the Creator who knows the complete makeup of a human and his (her) behaviors.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

INSPIRATION:The quality or state of being moved by or produced under the direction of a spirit from a superhuman source. When that source is Jehovah, the result is a pronouncement or writings that are truly the word of God. The apostle Paul stated at 2 Timothy 3:16: “All Scripture is inspired of God.” Therefore, what Paul spoke and wrote was not his opinion but the point of view of the Creator who knows the complete makeup of a human and his (her) behaviors.

The only thing that would lead us to believe that Paul was "inspired" is if someone told us that he was inspired AND we believed them. Why either of those things would happen I have no idea.

However, simply defining the word 'inspiration' means absolutely nothing with reference to Paul unless someone makes a baseless accusation about it and someone else believes it for no good reason.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Then how are many of the things written in it accurately taking place today? For example:

(2 Timothy 3:1-5) But know this, that in the last days critical times hard to deal with will be here. 2 For men will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, self-assuming, haughty, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, disloyal, 3 having no natural affection, not open to any agreement, slanderers, without self-control, fierce, without love of goodness, 4 betrayers, headstrong, puffed up [with pride], lovers of pleasures rather than lovers of God, 5 having a form of godly devotion but proving false to its power; and from these turn away.

Also Matthew 24:3-14 describes current events...

3 While he was sitting upon the Mount of Olives, the disciples approached him privately, saying: “Tell us, When will these things be, and what will be the sign of your presence and of the conclusion of the system of things?” 4 And in answer Jesus said to them: “Look out that nobody misleads YOU; 5 for many will come on the basis of my name, saying, ‘I am the Christ,’ and will mislead many. 6 YOU are going to hear of wars and reports of wars; see that YOU are not terrified. For these things must take place, but the end is not yet. 7 “For nation will rise against nation and kingdom against kingdom, and there will be food shortages and earthquakes in one place after another. 8 All these things are a beginning of pangs of distress. 9 “Then people will deliver YOU up to tribulation and will kill YOU, and YOU will be objects of hatred by all the nations on account of my name. 10 Then, also, many will be stumbled and will betray one another and will hate one another. 11 And many false prophets will arise and mislead many; 12 and because of the increasing of lawlessness the love of the greater number will cool off. 13 But he that has endured to the end is the one that will be saved. 14 And this good news of the kingdom will be preached in all the inhabited earth for a witness to all the nations; and then the end will come.

Have you seen such things occurring? Philosopher Bertrand Russell wrote: “Ever since 1914, everybody conscious of trends in the world has been deeply troubled by what has seemed like a fated and predetermined march toward ever greater disaster.” Danish historian Peter Munch is reported as writing: “The outbreak of the war in 1914 is the great turning point of the history of humanity. . . . We entered an age of disaster, horror, and hatred, with insecurity everywhere.”

Besides wars, from 1914 onward, famine, pestilence, earthquakes, and violence have escalated to an unprecedented degree worldwide. Sadly, in spite of advanced science and technology, mankind is totally helpless when it comes to solving these difficult problems. I feel that the sign Jesus gave regarding the time of the end is right before our eyes.

When have such things not been going on? I mean, you could say this just about any time during the history of mankind.

I don't see anything prophetic in describing things that were already occurring.

 

[starlite]

When have such things not been going on? I mean, you could say this just about any time during the history of mankind.

I don't see anything prophetic in describing things that were already occurring.

One discerning factor is that it is happening on a worldwide scale...with more disastrous consequences.

 

[SkepticThinker]

One discerning factor is that it is happening on a worldwide scale...with more disastrous consequences.

Again though, not a new thing.